AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:161-171 (1990)
Continuous-Variable Quantification of Dermatoglyphic Whorl Patterns: A Statistical Study of Angular Measurements CHANCHAL SINGH mun KARL B MCKNIGHT Department of Mathematics i C S i, Department of Biology iK B M), St Lawrence University, Canton, New York 13617
KEY WORDS
Base angles, Tangent angles, Core, Triradius, Ridge Count, Dermatoglyphics, Whorl patterns, Sex Discrimination
ABSTRACT Core(s) and triradii of dermatoglyphic whorl patterns were joined together to form triangles. Base angles of these triangles were measured (in degrees). The tangent angle at the lower edge of a ridge crossing the core-triradius line was also measured in degrees on each side of the whorl. Significant differences and similarities of these angles were investigated for unrelated Caucasian males and females by the use of Student’s t- and Pearson’s r-tests. Angular findings were related to the corresponding information provided by ridge counts. Similarities and differences between males and females are described. Dermatoglyphic whorl patterns reflect various genetic and environmental traits in human populations and vary in ways that have proved useful in the study of genetics (Holt, 1968; Rostron, 1977; Wertelecki and Plato, 19831, medical disorders (Wertelecki et al., 1973; Schaumann and Alter, 1976; Schaumann et al., 1982; Garruto et al., 19831, criminology (FBI, 1979; Moses, 1987; Hall, 19871, gerontology (Plato, 1978; Wertelecki and Plato, 1983). physical anthropology (Jantz, 1977; Pollitzer and Plato, 1979), and sexual dimorphism (Arrieta et a]., 1987; Dennis and Sunderland, 1979; Janz, 1977; Karev, 1986; Micle and Kobyliansky, 1986, 1988; Goodson and Meier, 1986). However, more extensive use of dermatogly hic atterns has been limited not only by t e in erent genotypic and phenotypic variability of the patterns but by the discontinuous nature of the dermatogly hic variables currently used by most wor ers as well. Dermatoglyphic studies usually use ridge counts, a discrete random variable. Statistical conclusions reached with ridge count data are often questionable, unless large sample sizes permit the use of the central limit theorem. However, in order to maintain the largeness of the sample sizes, ridge counts of loops and whorls have been mostly lumped together. As a result, much of the potential information inherent in the dermatoglyphic patterns
K K
K
0
1990 WTLEY-IJSS, INC.
may have been either obscured or lost. Many powerful statistical techniques such as analysis of variance, principal components, and multiple linear regression assume that variables are distributed normally and that variances are homogeneous (Kleinbaum et al., 1988; Sokal and Rohlf, 1981). Consequently, the validity of many studies using these techniques may be questionable (because of smallness of sample sizes) if pooling of ridge counts of loops and whorls were not done in the hope of gaining more insight by studying these patterns separately. Even though most nonparametric statistical techniques comparable to corresponding parametric techniques assume continuity of the variables under study (Conover, 19711, we are not aware of any digital dermatoglyphic studies using continuous variables. Nor have we any knowledge of dermatoglyphic studies making use of nonparametric statistics, even though nonparametric techniques permit small sample sizes. In the present study, new variables of a continuous type are introduced. Inasmuch as the underlying causes of medical disorders, criminal behavior, gerontology, and so forth, are very complex, we believe that dermatoglyphic studies should Received September 11,1987, accepted September 13,1989.
162
C. SINGH AND K.B. MCKNIGHT
not overlook possible variables that may be potentially of greater complexity than ridge counts. We hope this study inspires the reader to explore new dimensions in the study of digtal dermatoglyphics patterns. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Fingerprints of 300 unrelated North American Caucasian males and females were obtained using the inked pad method of Cummins and Midlo (1961). Equal numbers of males and females were sampled. The fingerprints were projected onto white paper taped to a wall approximately 2 m away from an opaque projector. Each fingerprint’s image was thus approximately 10 cm x 20 cm. This study presents only the results of finger rints having whorl patterns. AT1 the whorls we examined had two triradii and one or two cores. A straight line connecting a core to the nearest triradius was called a CT (core-triradius) line (Fig. 1). A core-triradius line was drawn the same way as it is done in recording ridge counts. We have followed Holt’s (1968) convention and the CT lines drawn in Figures 1-3 are from her book. A strai ht line joining the two triradii was called a TgR (triradius) line. The two CT lines were extended, if necessary, to form a triangle AABC (Fig. 1).For the left hand, the angles,
Radial base angle
Ulnar base angle
Radial tangent angle
Ulnar tangent angle
28.8 i 8.6 41.8 f 12.1 46.6 i 12.9 41.6 i11.4 36.1 i10.0 33.5 i 9.4 43.9 i15.1 44.9 It 7.8 40.7 i 8.0 :x,4 i s.3
37.8 k 24.0 39.2 i 11.2 46.5 i13.9 53.3 i14.6 50.9 i 17.0 40.5 i11.7 40.3 I 10.5 45.9 i 14.8 54.1 rt 13.6 46.2 L iG.2
80.8 i 8.4 72.2 i 1 4 . 6 71.2 1 1 4 . 9 76.3 -i- 13.7 81.8 i 8.9
69.6 i11.0 75.4 t 15.2 72.7 t 14.0 64.2 i17.1 55.9 i 22.9 62.3 i 12.6 75.2 i14.5 68.4 I 18.1 66.7 -., F 13.9
83.7 i 7.3 68.7 t 14.5 80.5 i10.3 80.5 1 1 0 . 4 61.1 I6.6
Radial no. of ridges __.__..
rh.2 i 3i.7
Ulnar no. of ridges
19.8 i4.2 13.6 i 4.3 15.5 i 5.4 17.4 i- 4.3 16.9 i 3.0
14.8 i 4.8 15.1 i 4.1 14.5 i 5.0 12.5 t 4.4 9.3 I 3.6
18.2 I 3.6 12.8 i4.3 16.4 i 3.7 3.6 18.4 i 4 7 . i i 2.8
13.4 i 4.5 16.0 f 4.4
15.2 + fin 13.0 i 3.6 ~
Y.b ? 4.5
TABLE 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Four Trigonometric Measures and Ridge Counts for the Fingers of 150 1Jnrelated Caucasian Females
Digit
N
Radial base angle
R,
47 44 12 37 12
28.6 i- 7.7 41.6 i 9.3 39.3 5 12.3 41.3 i 11.7 38.1 i12.1
33.4 i12.8 38.3 f 12.1 54.8 f 14.2 47.7 i 14.3 46.4 i 16.7
46 31 17 31
33.7 i 8.3 44.7 i 12.6 42.4 i 7.3 40.5 f 10.2 47.3 i 10.3
33.9 i 13.6 41.3 i 9.6 51.2 -t 14.5 55.0 i13.6 43.4 i 6.8
~.
R; R3 R4
R5
L1 L‘i
LJ L4 L5
10
Ulnar base angle
Radial tangent angle
Ulnar tangent angle
Radial no. of ridges
Ulnar no. of ridges
80.6 i 7.7 70.7 t 13.0 81.6 i11.7 75.4 i 10.6 76.6 f 12.7 82.3 5 7 . 3 67.5 I 17.0 76.8 I 11.0 81.3 i- 9.7 76.6 i 9.7
69.6 i11.6 73.4 t 15.2 63.7 i 20.6 73.2 i 12.1 68.5 i 19.8
19.9 i 3.2 12.6 i- 3.8 17.3 i 3.9 17.3 i- 4.1 17.3 i 4.4
14.0 i 5 . 2 13.3rt 5.0 13.0 i- 5.6 14.0 i 4.3 11.3 i 3.7
66.3 i 13.8 72.6 i 11.7 66.9 i 13.0 66.9 i 13.7 74.6 F 9.7
18.8 i4.0 12.9 i 4.4 15.8 i 3.5 18.2 F 4.2 12.7 i 2.3
14.7 i5.4 13.9 i 4.0 13.8 i- 4.6 13.0 i 4.3 12.0 i 3.6
TABLE 3. Student’s Paired t-Test with Associated P Values between Ulnar Base Angle (UBA)and Radial Base Angle (RBAj, the Ulnar Tangent Angle (UTAj and the Radial Tangent Angle (RTA), and the U h a r Ridge Count (URC) and the Radial Ridge Count (RRCj Males
REP, Sampie size
(h’) R1
Rz R3 R4
R,j L1
Lz L3 I,4
LS
56 29 19 42 15
41 40 16 30 9
.T.
1 %
UBA t P ...____
___.
nT A
RRC
YS.
VS.
LlLil
UTA t _- P -2.70/0.009 5.58/0.000 0.85/0.400 -0.73/0.470 0.02/0.980 -0.26/0.800 -4.10/0.000 3.21/0.003 -2.83/0.013 3.73/0.002 --3.32/0.002 9.22/0.000 1.21/0.240 -1.64/0.110 -0.25/0.810 2.17/0.047 -4.80/0.000 4.14/0.000 0.42/0.690 -2.15/0.064
URC t P
Females RTA
Sampie size (N)
RBA vs. UBA t P
47 44 12 37 12 46 31 17 31 10
-2.70/0.010 1.27/0.210 -2.39/0.036 -2.09/0.044 --1.60/0.140 -0.07/0.950 1.05/0.300 --1.82/0.087 -5.90/0.000 1.26/0.240
VS.
UTA t P
~~~
7.20/0.000 -1.16/0.250 0.65/0.320 7.41/0.000 9.66/0.000 5.93/0.000 -3.11/0.003 0.90/0.380 7.35/0.000 4.05/0.004
L,; between the radial ridge count and the ulnar ridge count for digits R1 and L4. Males and females differed most notably in the correlation analyses (Tables 5 and 6) when the radial base angles were compared with ulnar base angles (significantly posi-
5.14/0.000 -0.76/0.450 2.19/0.051 0.74/0.460 1.17/0.270 6.20/0.000 -1.11/0.270 2.23/0.040 4.11/0.000 0.46/0.660
RRC vs. URC t P-
7.68/0.000 -0.90/0.370
2.651’0.022 3.98/0.000 3.49/0.005 4.84/0.000 -0.90/0.380 2.09/0.053 7.32/0.000 0.47/0.650
tive for digits R1 and Lq of females but not of males, significantly negative for L, of females but not of males). Radial base angles were positively correlated with ulnar tangent angles for digits R,, R3 of females but not of males. Ulnar base angles and radial
167
CONTINUOUS VARIABLES AND DERMATOGLYPHIC WHORLS
TABLE 4. C o m m r i s o n s (Studenti; t-Testi between Males and Females for Seven DematodvDhic Measures.’,2
RBA t
RTA
UBA
P
Ri R:, R:]
-0.12/0.900 -0.10/0.920
K4
-0.12/0.910
- 1.5$/0.130
t
P
-1.19l0.240 -0.34/0.730
1.59/0.130 -1.87/0.066
Rr,
0.45/0.650
-0.69/0.490
Li
O.OXI’0.930
L:! L:I
-0.95/0.350
-2.43/0.017* 0.44/0.660 1.04/0.310 0.27/0.790
L1 Lz
0.23l0.820
--0.11/0.920 2.24/0.039*
-0.70/0.500
t
RRC
UTA P
t
-0.11/0.920
P
0.02/0.980 -0.57/0.570
-0.45/0.660 2.16/0.040* -0.32/0.7!3 -1.20/0.240
t
0.09/0.930 -1.03/0.310
-1.32/0.200 2.71/0.008* 1.541’0.140
--0.86/0.390
1.4 lI’0.160
-0.32/0.750
-0.85/0.400
-0.99/0.330
-0.28/0.780
0.08/0.940
0.29/0.770
--1.05/0.310
-1.18i0.860
URC -____ P
1.07/0.290 -
0.06/0.950 0.31/0.760 0.67/0.500 0.07/0.940
-0.49/0.630 -0.24/0.810 --3.71/0.002*
t
P
-0.85/0.400 -1.69/0.096 0.77/0.450 1.55l0.120 1.35l0.190
1.23/0.220 -2.07/0.043* -0.73l0.470
O.OOI’O.999 1.31/0.210
TRC t
P
--0.55/0.580 ---2.11/0.038* 0.09/0.930 0.92/0.360 1.08l0.290 1.24/0.220 --1.40/0.170 -0.73/0.470
-0.14/0.890 --0.97/0.350
‘Uinar base angir ~l;r)X,.iadS!iasc 3ng!. (RR4’ xlnw tanwnt, angle (UTA),radialtangent angle (RTA),ulnarridge count (URC),radial gdge count (RRC), and total (ulnar + radial! ridge count (TRC). See Tables 1 and 2 for sample sizes and average values and standard deviations for each sex. *Comparisons significant a t P 5 0.05.
tangent angles were positively correlated for digit L, of females but not of males. We also observed a si ificant negative correlation: between the u nar tangent angle and the ulnar base angle on digit L3 for males but not of females, between the radial ridge count and the radial base angle on digit R3 of males but not of females, between the radial ridge count and the radial base angle on di ‘t R, of females but not of males; between t e radial ridge count and the ulnar tangent angle on digit L, of males but not of females; between the ulnar ridge count and the radial tangent angle on digits RI and R, of females but not of males (Tables 5 and 6). Our data also differed significant1 between the sexes for the correlation of ra ial ridge count and ulnar base angle of digit R1 and for the correlation of ulnar ridge count and radial base angle of digit L,. Similar differences were exhibited by digit R, for the correlation of radial ridge count and ulnar tan ent an le and the correlation between the u nar ri ge count and radial tangent angle of digit L,. A significant positive correlation between ulnar ridge count and radial base angle on digits R1 and R5 of males was not shared by the females. The stepwise discriminant analysis of the R4 data showed that of the six variables possible (radial and ulnar base angles, radial and ulnar tangent angles and radial and ulnar ridge counts) for the discriminant function, the ulnar tangent angle was the only significant variable to be entered and retained (Wilks h = 0.92, P
Continuous-Variable Quantification of Dermatoglyphic Whorl Patterns: A Statistical Study of Angular Measurements CHANCHAL SINGH mun KARL B MCKNIGHT Department of Mathematics i C S i, Department of Biology iK B M), St Lawrence University, Canton, New York 13617
KEY WORDS
Base angles, Tangent angles, Core, Triradius, Ridge Count, Dermatoglyphics, Whorl patterns, Sex Discrimination
ABSTRACT Core(s) and triradii of dermatoglyphic whorl patterns were joined together to form triangles. Base angles of these triangles were measured (in degrees). The tangent angle at the lower edge of a ridge crossing the core-triradius line was also measured in degrees on each side of the whorl. Significant differences and similarities of these angles were investigated for unrelated Caucasian males and females by the use of Student’s t- and Pearson’s r-tests. Angular findings were related to the corresponding information provided by ridge counts. Similarities and differences between males and females are described. Dermatoglyphic whorl patterns reflect various genetic and environmental traits in human populations and vary in ways that have proved useful in the study of genetics (Holt, 1968; Rostron, 1977; Wertelecki and Plato, 19831, medical disorders (Wertelecki et al., 1973; Schaumann and Alter, 1976; Schaumann et al., 1982; Garruto et al., 19831, criminology (FBI, 1979; Moses, 1987; Hall, 19871, gerontology (Plato, 1978; Wertelecki and Plato, 1983). physical anthropology (Jantz, 1977; Pollitzer and Plato, 1979), and sexual dimorphism (Arrieta et a]., 1987; Dennis and Sunderland, 1979; Janz, 1977; Karev, 1986; Micle and Kobyliansky, 1986, 1988; Goodson and Meier, 1986). However, more extensive use of dermatogly hic atterns has been limited not only by t e in erent genotypic and phenotypic variability of the patterns but by the discontinuous nature of the dermatogly hic variables currently used by most wor ers as well. Dermatoglyphic studies usually use ridge counts, a discrete random variable. Statistical conclusions reached with ridge count data are often questionable, unless large sample sizes permit the use of the central limit theorem. However, in order to maintain the largeness of the sample sizes, ridge counts of loops and whorls have been mostly lumped together. As a result, much of the potential information inherent in the dermatoglyphic patterns
K K
K
0
1990 WTLEY-IJSS, INC.
may have been either obscured or lost. Many powerful statistical techniques such as analysis of variance, principal components, and multiple linear regression assume that variables are distributed normally and that variances are homogeneous (Kleinbaum et al., 1988; Sokal and Rohlf, 1981). Consequently, the validity of many studies using these techniques may be questionable (because of smallness of sample sizes) if pooling of ridge counts of loops and whorls were not done in the hope of gaining more insight by studying these patterns separately. Even though most nonparametric statistical techniques comparable to corresponding parametric techniques assume continuity of the variables under study (Conover, 19711, we are not aware of any digital dermatoglyphic studies using continuous variables. Nor have we any knowledge of dermatoglyphic studies making use of nonparametric statistics, even though nonparametric techniques permit small sample sizes. In the present study, new variables of a continuous type are introduced. Inasmuch as the underlying causes of medical disorders, criminal behavior, gerontology, and so forth, are very complex, we believe that dermatoglyphic studies should Received September 11,1987, accepted September 13,1989.
162
C. SINGH AND K.B. MCKNIGHT
not overlook possible variables that may be potentially of greater complexity than ridge counts. We hope this study inspires the reader to explore new dimensions in the study of digtal dermatoglyphics patterns. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Fingerprints of 300 unrelated North American Caucasian males and females were obtained using the inked pad method of Cummins and Midlo (1961). Equal numbers of males and females were sampled. The fingerprints were projected onto white paper taped to a wall approximately 2 m away from an opaque projector. Each fingerprint’s image was thus approximately 10 cm x 20 cm. This study presents only the results of finger rints having whorl patterns. AT1 the whorls we examined had two triradii and one or two cores. A straight line connecting a core to the nearest triradius was called a CT (core-triradius) line (Fig. 1). A core-triradius line was drawn the same way as it is done in recording ridge counts. We have followed Holt’s (1968) convention and the CT lines drawn in Figures 1-3 are from her book. A strai ht line joining the two triradii was called a TgR (triradius) line. The two CT lines were extended, if necessary, to form a triangle AABC (Fig. 1).For the left hand, the angles,
Radial base angle
Ulnar base angle
Radial tangent angle
Ulnar tangent angle
28.8 i 8.6 41.8 f 12.1 46.6 i 12.9 41.6 i11.4 36.1 i10.0 33.5 i 9.4 43.9 i15.1 44.9 It 7.8 40.7 i 8.0 :x,4 i s.3
37.8 k 24.0 39.2 i 11.2 46.5 i13.9 53.3 i14.6 50.9 i 17.0 40.5 i11.7 40.3 I 10.5 45.9 i 14.8 54.1 rt 13.6 46.2 L iG.2
80.8 i 8.4 72.2 i 1 4 . 6 71.2 1 1 4 . 9 76.3 -i- 13.7 81.8 i 8.9
69.6 i11.0 75.4 t 15.2 72.7 t 14.0 64.2 i17.1 55.9 i 22.9 62.3 i 12.6 75.2 i14.5 68.4 I 18.1 66.7 -., F 13.9
83.7 i 7.3 68.7 t 14.5 80.5 i10.3 80.5 1 1 0 . 4 61.1 I6.6
Radial no. of ridges __.__..
rh.2 i 3i.7
Ulnar no. of ridges
19.8 i4.2 13.6 i 4.3 15.5 i 5.4 17.4 i- 4.3 16.9 i 3.0
14.8 i 4.8 15.1 i 4.1 14.5 i 5.0 12.5 t 4.4 9.3 I 3.6
18.2 I 3.6 12.8 i4.3 16.4 i 3.7 3.6 18.4 i 4 7 . i i 2.8
13.4 i 4.5 16.0 f 4.4
15.2 + fin 13.0 i 3.6 ~
Y.b ? 4.5
TABLE 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Four Trigonometric Measures and Ridge Counts for the Fingers of 150 1Jnrelated Caucasian Females
Digit
N
Radial base angle
R,
47 44 12 37 12
28.6 i- 7.7 41.6 i 9.3 39.3 5 12.3 41.3 i 11.7 38.1 i12.1
33.4 i12.8 38.3 f 12.1 54.8 f 14.2 47.7 i 14.3 46.4 i 16.7
46 31 17 31
33.7 i 8.3 44.7 i 12.6 42.4 i 7.3 40.5 f 10.2 47.3 i 10.3
33.9 i 13.6 41.3 i 9.6 51.2 -t 14.5 55.0 i13.6 43.4 i 6.8
~.
R; R3 R4
R5
L1 L‘i
LJ L4 L5
10
Ulnar base angle
Radial tangent angle
Ulnar tangent angle
Radial no. of ridges
Ulnar no. of ridges
80.6 i 7.7 70.7 t 13.0 81.6 i11.7 75.4 i 10.6 76.6 f 12.7 82.3 5 7 . 3 67.5 I 17.0 76.8 I 11.0 81.3 i- 9.7 76.6 i 9.7
69.6 i11.6 73.4 t 15.2 63.7 i 20.6 73.2 i 12.1 68.5 i 19.8
19.9 i 3.2 12.6 i- 3.8 17.3 i 3.9 17.3 i- 4.1 17.3 i 4.4
14.0 i 5 . 2 13.3rt 5.0 13.0 i- 5.6 14.0 i 4.3 11.3 i 3.7
66.3 i 13.8 72.6 i 11.7 66.9 i 13.0 66.9 i 13.7 74.6 F 9.7
18.8 i4.0 12.9 i 4.4 15.8 i 3.5 18.2 F 4.2 12.7 i 2.3
14.7 i5.4 13.9 i 4.0 13.8 i- 4.6 13.0 i 4.3 12.0 i 3.6
TABLE 3. Student’s Paired t-Test with Associated P Values between Ulnar Base Angle (UBA)and Radial Base Angle (RBAj, the Ulnar Tangent Angle (UTAj and the Radial Tangent Angle (RTA), and the U h a r Ridge Count (URC) and the Radial Ridge Count (RRCj Males
REP, Sampie size
(h’) R1
Rz R3 R4
R,j L1
Lz L3 I,4
LS
56 29 19 42 15
41 40 16 30 9
.T.
1 %
UBA t P ...____
___.
nT A
RRC
YS.
VS.
LlLil
UTA t _- P -2.70/0.009 5.58/0.000 0.85/0.400 -0.73/0.470 0.02/0.980 -0.26/0.800 -4.10/0.000 3.21/0.003 -2.83/0.013 3.73/0.002 --3.32/0.002 9.22/0.000 1.21/0.240 -1.64/0.110 -0.25/0.810 2.17/0.047 -4.80/0.000 4.14/0.000 0.42/0.690 -2.15/0.064
URC t P
Females RTA
Sampie size (N)
RBA vs. UBA t P
47 44 12 37 12 46 31 17 31 10
-2.70/0.010 1.27/0.210 -2.39/0.036 -2.09/0.044 --1.60/0.140 -0.07/0.950 1.05/0.300 --1.82/0.087 -5.90/0.000 1.26/0.240
VS.
UTA t P
~~~
7.20/0.000 -1.16/0.250 0.65/0.320 7.41/0.000 9.66/0.000 5.93/0.000 -3.11/0.003 0.90/0.380 7.35/0.000 4.05/0.004
L,; between the radial ridge count and the ulnar ridge count for digits R1 and L4. Males and females differed most notably in the correlation analyses (Tables 5 and 6) when the radial base angles were compared with ulnar base angles (significantly posi-
5.14/0.000 -0.76/0.450 2.19/0.051 0.74/0.460 1.17/0.270 6.20/0.000 -1.11/0.270 2.23/0.040 4.11/0.000 0.46/0.660
RRC vs. URC t P-
7.68/0.000 -0.90/0.370
2.651’0.022 3.98/0.000 3.49/0.005 4.84/0.000 -0.90/0.380 2.09/0.053 7.32/0.000 0.47/0.650
tive for digits R1 and Lq of females but not of males, significantly negative for L, of females but not of males). Radial base angles were positively correlated with ulnar tangent angles for digits R,, R3 of females but not of males. Ulnar base angles and radial
167
CONTINUOUS VARIABLES AND DERMATOGLYPHIC WHORLS
TABLE 4. C o m m r i s o n s (Studenti; t-Testi between Males and Females for Seven DematodvDhic Measures.’,2
RBA t
RTA
UBA
P
Ri R:, R:]
-0.12/0.900 -0.10/0.920
K4
-0.12/0.910
- 1.5$/0.130
t
P
-1.19l0.240 -0.34/0.730
1.59/0.130 -1.87/0.066
Rr,
0.45/0.650
-0.69/0.490
Li
O.OXI’0.930
L:! L:I
-0.95/0.350
-2.43/0.017* 0.44/0.660 1.04/0.310 0.27/0.790
L1 Lz
0.23l0.820
--0.11/0.920 2.24/0.039*
-0.70/0.500
t
RRC
UTA P
t
-0.11/0.920
P
0.02/0.980 -0.57/0.570
-0.45/0.660 2.16/0.040* -0.32/0.7!3 -1.20/0.240
t
0.09/0.930 -1.03/0.310
-1.32/0.200 2.71/0.008* 1.541’0.140
--0.86/0.390
1.4 lI’0.160
-0.32/0.750
-0.85/0.400
-0.99/0.330
-0.28/0.780
0.08/0.940
0.29/0.770
--1.05/0.310
-1.18i0.860
URC -____ P
1.07/0.290 -
0.06/0.950 0.31/0.760 0.67/0.500 0.07/0.940
-0.49/0.630 -0.24/0.810 --3.71/0.002*
t
P
-0.85/0.400 -1.69/0.096 0.77/0.450 1.55l0.120 1.35l0.190
1.23/0.220 -2.07/0.043* -0.73l0.470
O.OOI’O.999 1.31/0.210
TRC t
P
--0.55/0.580 ---2.11/0.038* 0.09/0.930 0.92/0.360 1.08l0.290 1.24/0.220 --1.40/0.170 -0.73/0.470
-0.14/0.890 --0.97/0.350
‘Uinar base angir ~l;r)X,.iadS!iasc 3ng!. (RR4’ xlnw tanwnt, angle (UTA),radialtangent angle (RTA),ulnarridge count (URC),radial gdge count (RRC), and total (ulnar + radial! ridge count (TRC). See Tables 1 and 2 for sample sizes and average values and standard deviations for each sex. *Comparisons significant a t P 5 0.05.
tangent angles were positively correlated for digit L, of females but not of males. We also observed a si ificant negative correlation: between the u nar tangent angle and the ulnar base angle on digit L3 for males but not of females, between the radial ridge count and the radial base angle on digit R3 of males but not of females, between the radial ridge count and the radial base angle on di ‘t R, of females but not of males; between t e radial ridge count and the ulnar tangent angle on digit L, of males but not of females; between the ulnar ridge count and the radial tangent angle on digits RI and R, of females but not of males (Tables 5 and 6). Our data also differed significant1 between the sexes for the correlation of ra ial ridge count and ulnar base angle of digit R1 and for the correlation of ulnar ridge count and radial base angle of digit L,. Similar differences were exhibited by digit R, for the correlation of radial ridge count and ulnar tan ent an le and the correlation between the u nar ri ge count and radial tangent angle of digit L,. A significant positive correlation between ulnar ridge count and radial base angle on digits R1 and R5 of males was not shared by the females. The stepwise discriminant analysis of the R4 data showed that of the six variables possible (radial and ulnar base angles, radial and ulnar tangent angles and radial and ulnar ridge counts) for the discriminant function, the ulnar tangent angle was the only significant variable to be entered and retained (Wilks h = 0.92, P
